You wrote : " It would be a mistake, however, to regard the latest order as the restoration of status quo when the judiciary has to start work again to find an amicable solution. There is little doubt that such a renewed endeavour will be a time-consuming procedure. Instead, the stay order can be seen as a blessing in disguise since it gives another opportunity to the government to initiate a dialogue between the contending parties in order to find a negotiated settlement. Considering that no such attempt has been made since the time when Chandra Shekhar was prime minister in 1990, the situation is ripe for a fresh attempt, not least because the issue is not a mere property dispute, but relates to a matter of faith ".

I regret to state that you have 'NOT SPOKEN THE WHOLE TRUTH', when you refer to the attempts of the Chandra Shekhar govt. to bring the contending parties to the 'dialogue table'. Here is what happened at the 'dialogue' between the VHP and AIBMAC.

Soon after it took office in Nov. 1990, the Chandra Shekhar government was advised by (late) Shri Rajiv Gandhi to narrow down the Ayodhya dispute to the specific point whether the Babri Masjid had replaced a pre-existing Hindu temple. The First meeting between the VHP and the All India Babri Masjid Action Committee (AIBMAC) took place on 01 Dec 1990 in the presence of Shri Subodh Kant Sahay, Union Minister of State for Home Affairs (MoS), Shri Sharad Pawar, Shri Bhairon Singh Shekhawat and Shri Mulayum Singh Yadav, the CMs of Maharashtra, Rajasthan and U.P. respectively. After preliminary discussions the meeting was adjourned to 04 Dec 1990.

During the second meeting it was AGREED by both sides that (a) both sides will furnish their evidence to the MoS by 22 Dec 1990 ; (b) the MoS would make photocopies of the evidences by 25 Dec 1990 ; (c) the two parties would then meet on 10 Jan 1991 for reviewing the evidence. A brief summary of the respective evidence presented by both sides is appended below and makes for interesting reading!! This is available in open source publications! ! And yet, went unreported in the media, then !!The VHP Evidence: The evidence submitted by the VHP was precise and within the parameters laid down by the Government. All its documents were centered on the point that the Babri Masjid had replaced a pre-existing Ramjhanmabhoomi Mandir. Moreover the documents were summarized in a covering note setting out clearly the only conclusions that could be drawn.

The AIBMAC Evidence : The evidence submitted by the AIBMAC ‘experts’ was no more than a pile of papers, most of them being newspaper articles written by sundry scribes and prolific in polemics rather than hard facts and rigorous logic. To cite one example from this pile will be useful!! The AIBMAC had submitted as evidence that Ram was born in Nepal, in the Punjab, in Afghanistan, in Egypt, in Varanasi, in Ayodhya at a different site, in some unknown place and finally not at all etc. So,, of each of the 8 ‘evidences’ cited, 7 contradict the other!! Some ‘Eminent Historians’ these, that made the AIBMAC team of ‘experts’!! Rightly has it been termed by many sane scholars as ‘History v/s Causistary’!!

And then, finally on 25 Jan 1991, the AIBMAC 'unilaterally' withdrew from this debate by not presenting itself at the appointed place at the appointed hour. The Govt. was NOT informed of this unilateral decision. Needless to state, the VHP delegation was present at the appointed place at the appointed hour.